Predatory woman who incited man to abuse child, 4 jailed

[Justme56]

'Predatory' woman who incited man to abuse child, 4, jailed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67659811

BBC missing out some detail here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3058806/Transgender-model-inspired-Giselle-Kate-Moss-hopes-crowned-beauty-queen.html

Some journalists do report the truth, including O’Brien’s hometown newspaper

A friend of mine has just received the BBC response and it is slightly different from the one the rest of you have received. She raised the fact that when the BBC tell children 'transwomen are women' it causes confusion, and the result is directly enabling child abuse. The example she gave is the Amy/Andrew Miller case, where the little girl got into her male abuser's car as she thought he would be safe as he was trans then got abducted and sexually abused . Media, teachers and police who lie to children that these men are women are directly enabling/ complicit in child abuse.

The BBC's response does not deny this (impossible to deny as it was widely reported as evidence in court at the time!) but states

'when reporting on court proceedings, there are various legal constraints on us and we are obliged to report accurately, fairly and contemporaneously on what is said in court and given in evidence. Since Naomi O’Brien was described in court as a woman, and by the police, we had to follow that'.

This is a lie - and the BBC are clearly breaking their own guidelines- it is not fair, honest or accurate.

If you respond to the schools guidance, or the BBC, or have any contacts with powerful people (!), please raise this issue of children being left even more vulnerable to male abuse by the confusion caused by 'transwomen are women' beliefs forced on them by adults. The Andrew/ Miller case is horrific and a clear example of what this lying is leading to- every child is having 'transwomen are women' drummed into them by activist teachers, media, internet, even the police, and some are getting abused as a result. Safeguarding and truth have been removed. And those same children- including also children of transpeople- can't ask for help, even at school, as the media have contributed to this hostile environment for children who recognise reality.

Thank you, Chariot. A sobering point. Such a horrific case. Which reminds me - his appeal was due this month.

Well done to everyone following this up with the BBC. Until they start reporting facts and not fantasies they'll continue to be regarded with suspicion and derision when they claim to report honestly and openly.

I can't find any mention of Miller's appeal, due to be heard on the 5th of December.

Update on my following-up of the complaint to the BBC. Once again, it's the copy-and-paste standard letter with zero attempt to answer any of my concerns, and a doubling down on 'the court and GMP called this person as a woman, so they're a woman' (note that they didn't even put my name on the letter)
Reference CAS-7710968-D7C8D9 

Hello,

Thank you for getting in touch again about our coverage of the sentencing of Naomi O'Brien, jailed in connection with sexual offences involving a four-year-old boy and described by Greater Manchester Police as ‘a predatory woman’.

We are sorry to learn you were not satisfied with our first response. As we explained previously, our reporting was based on evidence heard in court and a press release issued by Greater Manchester Police in which they described Naomi O’Brien as a woman.

We appreciate that readers found the offences upsetting and questioned why we did not describe her as transgender or male. We checked this point again with the police and the court. The police told us that the defendant was referred to solely as a woman when she was arrested, charged and appeared in court. Court staff also confirmed that she was only referred to in court documents as a woman. We therefore reported accurately.

We are sorry if you did not appreciate the way we covered this particular case but would like to thank you again for contacting us to make your views known. All feedback from readers is appreciated and shared with senior editors so that they are aware of audience concerns.

This concludes Stage 1 of our complaints process. That means we can’t correspond with you further here. If you remain unhappy, you can now contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. You’ll need to explain why you think there’s a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated. Please do so within 20 working days of this reply.

Full details of how we handle complaints are available at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.

How to contact the ECU:

We’ve provided a unique link for you in this email. This will open up further information about how to submit your complaint. You’ll be asked for the case reference number we’ve provided in this reply. Once you’ve used the link and submitted your complaint, the link will no longer work.

This is your link to contact the ECU if you wish:
Click Here

Kind regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB You cannot reply to this email address. This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored.

Ah yes. I have same response. "It wisnae us, it wuz the polis."

Stage 2 it is then.

I got that one too! Everyone one lied in court, so that means our lies are accurate lies.

on to stage 2

Yes !! Please don't let go, I admire everyone who is pushing this.

I'm not from the UK and am not terribly familiar with the workings of the bbc, but if there was a mistake in the initial police report, let's say the suspect was driving a red car and they put blue by mistake, wouldn't this be corrected because the car is in fact red? Or if the arrest date was off by a day? Then they put "this article has been amended to reflect a previous error."

Of course I understand they are captured etc etc but this just seems so odd to me, working against standard journalism procedures.

To be fair it’s GMP and the Court that are really at fault.

However, the BBC could have use the headline predator rather than predatory woman.

Same email for me today too. Onto Stage 2.

Really fucking cross with the BBC for being so intransigent and stubborn. And misogynistic.

IPSO produced new guidance on reporting about trans identified people recently, but it seems to have been pulled from the IPSO website. Does anyone have the link? The one in my cache is:
Page not found
The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

The old link: https://www.ipso.co.uk/resources-and-guidance/transgender-guidance/

It's in a pdf now https://www.ipso.co.uk/resources-and-guidance/sex-and-gender-identity-guidance/

BBC response to the Stage 1 complaint: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/httpswwwbbccoukcontactcomplaintsentencing

For those pursuing it, a link to the current IPSO standards for reporting on sex & gender. Unless what’s written in these is inaccurate or actively misleading to the layperson - unlikely - the BBC is being at best disingenuous in its responses citing a need to follow the example set by the police - or, I’d argue, deliberately misleading. A quick skim of the below is eye-opening.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/2423/guidance-sex-gender-identity.pdf

Highlights (literally!) that seem relevant to this case…

There are other points I could highlight that could be used to counter these, of course - as the BBC will argue, it’s about balancing rights. And I’d say the IPSO guidelines are still weighted in the favour of the rights of the (trans) subject of the article - references to public interest, proportionate to this, are far fewer & quite generalised.

And, of course, if you don’t feel it’s actually in the public interest for females to be permitted to make a distinction between the sexes anyway, you may see references to the public interest as supporting the argument for obscuring this information! And, of course, if you believe trans women actually are female… 🤷

One useful point to counter those arguments, however, is that the IPSO guidance itself distinguishes between sex & gender, if implicitly, by listing both, & not as synonyms. If this is the case, IPSO must recognise “female” as a “sexed” term. Which, logically, means the police report the BBC so loyally cites which describes the individual as “female” is misleading & inaccurate by IPSO standards, and that the BBC has an obligation to qualify it through a second source, especially as the info., other reporting shows, was already in the public domain.

That’s my reading, anyway. If anyone else fancies a look (or, more likely on this site, is well-versed in the guidelines already! / works in law/media etc.), I’d be really interested to know your views…

Thank you for all that you are highlighting as points if argument.

For me it is more basic: the law shouldn’t be lying in the first place and the police should be dealing with cold, forensic molecules/ dna/ facts not just self-professed identities. But I realise these ideas don’t seem to be valued.

Totally agree. That we have to tie ourselves in knots to argue why our national broadcaster has an obligation not to lie to viewers in a context like crime reporting is scary as hell. At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, politicians & national institutions stubbornly prioritising the preferred “alternative truths” of a dominant group over objective reality, at the proven expense of another group or groups, is the top of a slippery slope to disaster. To not acknowledge that, because “this time, it really is for ‘the greater good’; this time, it really is in the people’s best interests” is naive in the extreme.

There's an article on this noncense in Spiked. I was going to post it on the 'nappy obsessed weirdo' thread but I can't see it.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/17/that-nappy-obsessed-weirdo-is-not-a-woman/

@IcakethereforeIam I thought you’d misspelled a word in your post but just realised what you did there - made me laugh!

Got another email from BBC complaints. Apparently they just regurgitate whatever a source spews out. No need for verification or analysis.

Anyone else still going with this? Ombudsman next

Greater Manchester Police
the great source of factual policing

GMP who turned a blind eye to Rotheram grooming gangs. Are there other examples of institutional misogyny or violence against women by that force?